Stage 2 English Studies
Compare the techniques that the authors of the two texts use to show disapproval of the
society each presents.
In the The Crucible and The Outsider Miller and Camus use the narratives to instate
critical views of their own societies. Miller allegorises American society using 1694
Salem, the “New Jerusalem” of its puritan inhabitants. Contrastingly Camus uses the
Catholic confines of French Algeria to instate a critical view of French society. Through
their joint disapproval of their societies , both Miller and Camus present their readers
with the challenge to question their own societies, urging us to break free from such
restrictions in order to live wholesome lives.
Although The Crucible is a play, and The Outsider a novella, both Miller and Camus
utilise techniques unique to their mediums to show their disapproval of their societies.
Millers’ use of stage directions and interpolation allows him to influence his audience’s
opinions of characters creating empathy and bias towards his protagonist, John Proctor
and mistrust towards less laudable characters. Miller tells us Proctor is a “worldly man”
when his character is introduced, inviting his audience to side with this character.
Reverend Parris, a leader of the puritan society is introduced in negative light. In his
introductory interpolation, Miller tells us that “There is little good to be said of Parris”
and “in history he cut a villainous path”.
Contrastingly, in The Outsider Camus uses the perspective of a first person protagonist,
M. Meursault to cast a critical view of a French society the author describes as being
“Obsessed with keeping up appearances”. Meursault’s apathetical existentialist
perspective is confronting and shocks the reader with its dismissal of human emotion.
This is shown in Meursault’s first words “Mother died today… or was it yesterday”.
Meursault’s lack of sensitivity allows us to see his society through the eyes of an
existentialist, and thus realise the absurdity of Meursault’s self obsessed French society.
Both Miller and Camus protagonists carry the authorial voice of their texts, allowing
their authors to use their constructs to criticise their societies. In The Crucible, Miller
establishes Proctor as a pillar of truthfulness. Proctor is a man of great physical and
emotional strength, who “hung the door on the church” in the theocracy of Salem.
During the chaos of the witchhunts, he serves as a “voice of reason” in this “world gone
mad”. His contrast to the madness of society allows Miller to use his construct to voice
criticisms of the madness of the allegorical witchhunts. Similarly, as the first person
narrator of The Outsider, Camus is able to use Meursault to carry the authorial voice of
his text. Meursault’s dismissal of human emotion is epitomised by his response to
Marie’s marriage proposal. Camus uses aside to allow Meursault to tell us that “It
[marriage] had little meaning anyway” before he tells Marie blatantly that “I suppose
we shall be married if it were to please you”. Using Meursault’s apathy as the authorial
voice of his text, Camus is able to criticise his own society.
Page 1 of 4
Analysis
Explicit
introduction to the
topic
demonstrates a
fluent and precise
intention to
analyse
connections
between texts.
Knowledge and
Understanding
Demonstrates
understanding of
the ways authors
use textual
conventions such
as stage directions
and first person
perspective to
make meaning.
Analysis
Perceptive
analysis of how
authors use
language
techniques to
influence opinions
such as using the
existential
perspective to
shock the reader.
Application
Demonstrates
detailed and
appropriate use of
evidence from the
texts, in the form
of direct quotes
and specific
references to
events and
characters to
support
contentions.
Stage 2 English Studies student work for use in 2011
533574130 (revised October 2010)
© SACE Board of South Australia 2010
Both Miller and Camus use a flawed protagonist in combination with a reductive
structure to affirm the authorial, yet human voices of their constructed protagonists.
Their characters are deconstructed to validate their disapproval of their societies. In Act
1 of The Crucible, Proctor is shown as a “weighty” figure of authority. In Act II Miller
shows Proctor at home, reduced to the stance of a mortal. His “cold” relationship with
his wife Elizabeth and lack of religious knowledge create “cracks” in the moral
“fortress” of John Proctor. We are shown a human side to this character, allowing Miller
to create empathy for Proctor. Act III sees Proctor enter “The Crucible” itself as he is on
trial for witchcraft, yet is judged for his standing against society. Act IV sees Proctor
exit as a purified soul, a renewed moral fortress. His moral standing against the
theocracy is proven when he refuses to give his “name”, honouring his fellow prisoners
and is thus sent to the noose, vindicating his life.
Similarly Camus uses a reductive structure to reveal Meursault as the authorial voice.
Meursault’s actions in Part One of the novella often shock Camus’ audience, yet in Part
Two we see that Camus’ protagonist is the “lesser of two evils”. Meursault is judged
“Mr Antichrist”, a “heartless monster”, not for his murder of an underclass Arab, but
because his society deems him “morally guilty of his mothers death”. In reflecting on
his actions at the beach, where his flawed sensitivity caused him to react to the “blade of
light” from the Arab’s knife, Meursault concludes “I was right, I had always been
right”. Thus after Camus estranges Meursault from his society we see how acceptance
of a death at the blade allows him to vindicate his existence, as well as Camus’ criticism
of this “self-obsessed” French society.
Both Miller and Camus make use of language appropriate to their temporal and physical
settings to heighten an understanding of the sociopolitical context of their societies and
develop our own criticisms of them. Miller’s use of 17th Century idiom allows us to
understand influences on John Proctor, the “heat” he feels for Abigail Williams, the
“cold” between himself and wife Elizabeth, and the “weight” of the judges show the
impact of Proctors society, and help create a man who is real for his time and place.
Likewise, Camus inclusion of French terms allow us to enter the French society as we
see Meursault drink “Café au láit” at his mother’s funeral, revealing Meursault’s
continual lack of need to “keep up appearances”. Using such rich language suited to
their settings allows Miller and Camus to heighten an understanding, and create
disapproval for their portrayed societies.
Through their texts The Crucible and The Outsider, both Miller and Camus use a
mastery of technique to create lifelike recreations of single minded societies. Through
the plights of their protagonist Proctor and Meursault, both authors use their constructs
to show the merit in challenging the confines of their respective societies as both
protagonists vindicate their lives through the “blood sacrifice for a higher moral cause”.
Page 2 of 4
Communication
Demonstrates the
appropriate use of
form and register
to convey complex
meaning including
the use of an
extensive and
subject specific
vocabulary e.g.
‘constructed
protagonists’ and
‘authorial voice’.
Knowledge and
Understanding
Demonstrates a
detailed
understanding of
the values of the
society and culture
portrayed in the
text.
Application
Uses a wide range
of language skills
and techniques
including clear
topic sentences,
appropriately
structured
paragraphs and a
logically ordered
argument to
answer the
question and
convince the
reader of the
validity of the point
of view presented.
Application
Integrates a
detailed and
perceptive
discussion of both
texts, moving
easily between
them.
Stage 2 English Studies student work for use in 2011
533574130 (revised October 2010)
© SACE Board of South Australia 2010
Performance Standards for Stage 2 English Studies
A
Knowledge and
Understanding
Analysis
Application
Communication
Knowledge and understanding of a
wide range of ways in which
authors use stylistic features and
language techniques to
communicate complex and familiar
ideas, and to influence the reader’s
response.
Analysis of complex connections
between personal experiences,
ideas, values, and beliefs, and
those explored in familiar and
unfamiliar texts.
Use of a wide range of language
skills and techniques to create
sophisticated and coherent texts
that address the meaning and
intention of the task.
Fluent and precise writing and
speaking, using appropriate style
and structure for a range of mainly
unfamiliar audiences and contexts.
In comparative exercises, a
perceptive analysis of
connections between texts, based
on analysis and synthesis of
similarities and/or differences.
In comparative exercises, a
perceptive recognition of
connections between texts,
through responses that integrate
discussion of texts and move
easily between them.
Detailed knowledge and
understanding of the ideas, values,
and beliefs in familiar and
unfamiliar texts.
Knowledge and understanding of
the ways in which creators and
readers of familiar and unfamiliar
texts use a range of textual
conventions to make meaning.
Perceptive analysis of a range of
ways in which authors use
language techniques to influence
opinions and decisions in familiar
and unfamiliar texts.
Appropriate use of form and
register to convey mostly complex
meaning in a range of unfamiliar
contexts.
Detailed and appropriate use of
evidence from texts to support
responses, with textual
references incorporated fluently in
discussion.
Skills in using the textual,
structural, and conventional
features of text types for a range
of familiar and unfamiliar
contexts, audiences, and
purposes.
B
C
Knowledge and understanding of
the ways in which authors use
stylistic features and language
techniques to communicate
complex and familiar ideas, and to
influence the reader’s response.
Analysis of some complex
connections between personal
experiences, ideas, values, and
beliefs, and those explored in
familiar, and some unfamiliar,
texts.
Knowledge and understanding of
some ideas, values, and beliefs in
familiar, and some unfamiliar,
texts.
In comparative exercises, a clear
analysis of connections between
texts, based on analysis of
similarities and/or differences.
Knowledge and understanding of
the ways in which creators and
readers of mainly familiar texts use
some textual conventions to make
meaning.
Analysis of a range of ways in
which authors use language
techniques to influence opinions
and decisions in familiar, and
some unfamiliar, texts.
Appropriate use of evidence from
texts to support responses, with
textual references incorporated in
discussion.
Knowledge and understanding of a
narrow range of ways in which
authors use stylistic features and
language techniques to
communicate mainly familiar ideas,
and to influence the reader’s
response.
Analysis of simple connections
between personal experiences,
ideas, values, and beliefs, and
those explored in familiar texts.
Use of language skills and
techniques to create texts that
address the meaning and
intention of the task.
Generally fluent and functional
writing and speaking, using
appropriate style and structure for
familiar audiences and contexts.
In comparative exercises,
analysis of connections between
texts, based on some
understanding of similarities
and/or differences.
In comparative exercises,
recognition of some connections
between texts, through responses
that compare and contrast texts,
usually in a sequential rather than
an integrated way.
Appropriate use of form and
register to convey simple meaning
in a narrow range of familiar and
unfamiliar contexts.
Knowledge and understanding of
some ideas, values, and beliefs in
mainly familiar texts.
Knowledge and understanding of
some of the ways in which creators
and readers of a range of familiar
texts use textual conventions to
make simple or factual meaning.
Page 3 of 4
Descriptive analysis of a number
of ways in which authors use
language techniques to influence
opinions and decisions in familiar
texts.
Use of a range of language skills
and techniques to create clear
and coherent texts that address
the meaning and intention of the
task.
Mostly fluent and precise writing
and speaking, using appropriate
style and structure for a range of
mostly familiar audiences and
contexts.
In comparative exercises,
recognition of connections
between texts, through responses
that compare and contrast texts in
an integrated way.
Appropriate use of form and
register to convey complex and
simple meaning in a range of
familiar and unfamiliar contexts.
Skills in using some of the textual,
structural, and conventional
features of text types for a range
of mainly familiar, and some
unfamiliar, contexts, audiences,
and purposes.
Competent use of evidence from
texts to support responses, with
some use of textual references in
discussion.
Skills in using some of the textual,
structural, and conventional
features of some text types for
familiar contexts, audiences, and
purposes.
Stage 2 English Studies student work for use in 2011
533574130 (revised October 2010)
© SACE Board of South Australia 2010
D
Knowledge and
Understanding
Analysis
Application
Communication
Knowledge and restricted
understanding of some simple
stylistic features and language
techniques used by authors to
communicate mainly familiar ideas,
and to influence the reader’s
response.
Reference to simple connections
between uncomplicated personal
experiences, ideas, values, and
beliefs, and those explored in
familiar texts.
Use of some language skills and
techniques to create texts that
partly address the meaning and
intention of the task.
Achievement of a level of fluency in
writing and speaking, in a mainly
appropriate style.
Knowledge and understanding of
some familiar ideas, values, and
beliefs in familiar texts.
Knowledge and understanding of a
restricted number of ways in which
creators and readers of a narrow
range of familiar texts use some
textual conventions to make simple
or factual meaning.
E
In comparative exercises,
answers that make partial
comparisons and contrasts.
Reference to some ways in which
authors use a range of language
techniques to influence opinions
and decisions in familiar texts.
Occasionally appropriate use of
form and/or register to convey
simple meaning in familiar contexts.
Some use of evidence from texts
to support a response, with use of
a narrow range of textual
references.
Skills in using some of the textual,
structural, or conventional
features of a text type for a
familiar context, audience, or
purpose.
Knowledge and understanding of a
restricted range of simple stylistic
features and language techniques
used by authors to communicate
familiar ideas, and to influence the
reader’s response.
Recognition of a simple
connection between a
straightforward personal,
experience, idea, value, or belief,
and that explored in a highly
familiar text.
Identification of an idea, a value, or
a belief in familiar texts.
In comparative exercises,
answers that make a simple
comparison or contrast.
Knowledge and understanding of
the ways in which a creator or
reader of a highly familiar text uses
textual conventions to make factual
meaning.
In comparative exercises, some
awareness of connections
between texts, through partial
responses that mainly deal with
texts separately.
Reference to the way in which an
author uses language techniques
to influence opinions and
decisions in a highly familiar text.
Attempted use of a restricted
range of language skills and/or
techniques to create a text or
texts that attempt to address the
meaning or intention of the task.
Emerging development of fluency
in an occasionally appropriate style.
Occasionally appropriate use of
form and register to convey literal
meaning in highly familiar contexts.
In comparative exercises,
identification of limited
connections between texts,
through fragmented responses
that deal with texts separately.
Restricted use of evidence from
texts to support a simple
response, with limited textual
reference.
Skills in using the textual,
structural, or conventional
features of a text type for a highly
familiar context, audience, or
purpose.
Page 4 of 4
Stage 2 English Studies student work for use in 2011
533574130 (revised October 2010)
© SACE Board of South Australia 2010